The Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham and Triumphalism

The first three priests of the freshly-erected Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham were ordained yesterday, thanks be to God. There will be many articles regarding them but maybe a good place to start reading is at the sensible Anna Arco’s article at the Catholic Herald.

Fathers Newton, Burnham and Broadhurst (Courtesy of James Bradley - click photo to go to his Flickr page with many more photos)

One thing stuck out when reading The Tablet’s feature article on the matter by Elena Curti. In it she writes in reference to the General Secretary of the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, Fr Marcus Stock:

Fr Stock is keen for the Holy Week receptions into the ordinariate to be sensitive in order to maintain good ecumenical relations. “There will be no semblance of triumphalism, but what there will be is a warm welcome for people who have had a difficult journey.”

There can be no problem with what he said. Yet, was he actually so “keen …to maintain good ecumenical relations” by avoiding triumphalism. It is hard to know if that is his sentiment or Ms Curti’s.

Obviously this will be challenging time for the Anglican Communion and good Catholics will not wish to be anything but gracious and charitable. At the same time, we have no need to apologise, nor should we fear a joyful and exuberant celebration of both these first ordinations, and also the receptions and ordinations to come in the next 6 months and beyond.

The Ordinariate is the fruition of honest ecumenism. The Catholic Church does not enter into ecumenical dialogue for mere chit-chat and a warm inner glow. The Church aims to bring our separated brethren back into the Church by means of ecumenical dialogue, demonstrating to them the truth of Catholic teaching and its claims to authentic authority. Fathers Keith, John and Andrew are the first-fruits of a new and potentially large ecumenical harvest of reconciliation to the Church. For this we must rejoice, and not say sorry, nor feel embarrassed. Our Lord was neither apologetic nor coy when he declared that he was sent to the lost sheep of Israel (Matt 15:24). It was not his exclusive mission, nor is it the Church’s exclusive mission. But it is a real part of its mission and now that it bears much fruit we should rejoice.

Nor should we worry too much about ecumenical sensitivities. While rejoicing we are not gloating. Yet it is true that the heat has been turned up on the Anglican communion. There are now even fewer reasons to stay and more than ever to come back to the Church for those Anglicans with Catholic sensibilities. This may upset some Anglicans but it need not upset Catholics: it is the seed of ecumenism grown to a point when it can bear much fruit. The Anglican communion has given much to England: a wonderful liturgical sense, a missionary endeavour worthy of admiration, the voice of conscience to a country that has grown ever more secular and unbelieving over the last 250 years or more. On these levels God has used it to bring good out of the damage of the Reformation. But now the Anglican communion has largely ceased to voice the Christian message in any significant way and has yielded to secular forces especially in the areas of morality, theology and social teaching. I suspect that its day has passed, and now is the time for English Christians to return to the Church that brought Christianity here originally.

To say so is not triumphalistic. It is to be confident in the truth and rightness of the Church’s ecumenical endeavour. It is to rejoice at the return to the fold of so many lost sheep. It is to turn to the Anglican communion with arms outstretched and say, “Now is the acceptable time. Come home.” If we are in any way triumphalistic it is only the triumphalism shown by the father as he welcomed home his prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32). And for that we have our Lord’s own warrant:

But while he was yet at a distance, his father saw him and had compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. And the son said to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.” But the father said to his servants, “Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet; and bring the fatted calf and kill it, and let us eat and make merry; for this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.”

And certainly let us who are in the Church not be like the prodigal’s elder brother as we see our separated brethren return:

Now his elder son was in the field; and as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing. And he called one of the servants and asked what this meant. And he said to him, “Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fatted calf, because he has received him safe and sound.” But he was angry and refused to go in. His father came out and entreated him, but he answered his father, “Lo, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command; yet you never gave me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends. But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your living with harlots, you killed for him the fatted calf!” And he said to him, “Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. It was fitting to make merry and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found.”

How can we rest and be happy until our brethren are back home with us? Perhaps now their return has begun in earnest. If so, let us rejoice and be glad.

6 thoughts on “The Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham and Triumphalism

  1. There is every reason to be optimistic that our goal for unity will soon be achieved. ….Archbishop Hepworth said The long years in which we have had conversations with the Holy See and with other Anglican groups which the Holy Father recognized in creating Anglican Ordinariates will now become a reality.


  2. From the beginning the Anglicans have been split between those who regard themselves as members of a self-governing branch of the Western Catholic Church and those who regard themselves as Protestants. This even led to the English Civil War which is as close as England got to the religious wars of the rest of Europe.

    But in every century there have been those among the side which leans towards Catholicism who conclude for one reason or another that they cannot be truly Catholic outside of full communion with the Holy See. After all, England was a Catholic country for over a thousand years and a very Catholic country at that. Just read
    Chaucer and Shakeaspeare.

    And there is a bit of irony here. The liturgy to be used by the priests of the Ordinariate is much closer to the traditional Catholic liturgy than is the Mass of Paul VI: in fact it seems like a translation of the Tridentine Mass into 16th Century English.
    This will appeal to traditionalists.

    And the provision for married priests will appeal to those who believe that, following the Orthodox, celibacy should be limited to monks, bishops, and members of religious orders who have taken the vows of poverty, chastity and obediance.

    This is therefore a wellcome developement. Unity with the communion headed by the current Archbishop of Canterbury is impossible as it has no binding doctrine or authority.


  3. It is not triumphalism, the author claims: “It is to turn to the Anglican communion with arms outstretched and say, “Now is the acceptable time. Come home.” Not quite: the Pope’s arms are hardly stretched wide enough. In fact, he has issued a highly selective invitation while declining to extend any to female Anglican priests or gay members who are in full communion in the Episcopal Church or other provinces of the Anglican Communion. This picking-and-choosing approach to invitation is certainly triumphalism with regard to Roman Catholic tradition. Traditions are not doctrines; they ought not to be sticking points in the ecumenical mission of all Christians. In setting up the Ordinariate for the male-only, ostensibly heterosexual priesthood, the Vatican has withdrawn from ecumenical dialogue with Christians whose traditions have evolved differently from Rome’s. What is that if not triumphalism?


    1. Firstly, an apology for not seeing your comment earlier. I was away for several days, with only my phone to check things, and then patchily. And for some reason it took me ages to get round to checking here.

      Actually, the invitation is not selective. Anglican women priests and homosexual Anglicans are invited too, and there is nothing to say that they are not. But, no one converts on their own terms. Conversion always ultimately involves a submission to God through his Church, a turning from self and self-interest and towards God and his interests. And most conversions season joy with some sacrifice. So since it is the clear, consistent and irreformable teaching of the Western and Eastern Churches that women cannot be ordained, then Anglican female clergy would obviously cease to be clergy on entering the Catholic Church. But if they want to be Catholics like the 99% of the laity of the Church, they can come without impediment and make the profession of faith.

      Likewise, homosexual Anglicans are welcome. Anyone who says there are not homosexual Catholics in goodly number is misinformed. But again, God’s moral code reflected in scripture and the teaching of the Church must be submitted to. It is simply being honest to do so. Now this is not to say that an individual homosexual might not fall – that does not bring a sentence excommunication. The Church provides sacraments and other supports to raise the fallen back up. It is one of the more compelling reasons to join the Church: whatever our failings and sins, the Church seeks to help us rise above them no matter how often we fall. Repentance is a daily requirement for most of us.

      So there is no picking and choosing on the Church’s part. Her teaching is clear, and consistent, and far more so than any Protestant denomination. Rather it is the convert, indeed any Catholic, who cannot pick and choose – pick and choose what teaching to accept and what not to accept.

      The Ordinariate, by the by, is not just for clergy – it is for clergy and laity. Whole parishes have come over!

      As for the Church withdrawing from ecumenical dialogue, I think that is pure polemic. No Church invest more time and money in authentic dialogue (as opposed to tokenism which marks so much of what passes for ecumenism). And if any denomination withdrew from ecumenical dialogue, or at least rendered it sterile, it was those which by ordaining women broke with the western and eastern Churches on a point of doctrine deriving without change from Christ himself. I suspect you will not accept that assessment, as I cannot accept yours as you have stated it. We must then agree to disagree.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.